Would it be moral to kill Hitler in 1932?

[fast]

Or is it justified but not necessarily a matter of morality, just necessity?

We look for the presence of or absence of justification to determine whether a killing is right or wrong and thus moral or immoral. A justified killing is a killing that is morally right. I believe there can be instances of a killing that is justified but not necessary, so I believe there are instances of unnecessary killings that are nevertheless justified. For instance, an officer that is shot and continues to be shot at would be justified in returning fire and killing the assailant, but a choice to not return fire shows that it's not undebatably necessary.

 

[DBT]

Or is it justified but not necessarily a matter of morality, just necessity?

We look for the presence of or absence of justification to determine whether a killing is right or wrong and thus moral or immoral. A justified killing is a killing that is morally right. I believe there can be instances of a killing that is justified but not necessary, so I believe there are instances of unnecessary killings that are nevertheless justified. For instance, an officer that is shot and continues to be shot at would be justified in returning fire and killing the assailant, but a choice to not return fire shows that it's not undebatably necessary.

Seems reasonable. Depends on the circumstances, I guess. If the officer has cover and is not in immediate danger, returning fire may not be the ethical option.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's never moral to kill, although sometimes it is necessary. Jeb Bush should have refused to answer a hypothetical nonsense question. Of coarse in this political atmosphere, he may have been labeled a "nazi lover" by Trump if he didn't answer affirmatively.
When Obama was elected, it only took a minority of senators to block almost everything he wanted to do (after the obamacare passage). If Trump does get elected (he won't), democrats AND many republicans will not allow him to get anything he wants. He will be alone and powerless, unlike Hitler. The comparison is silly. But conservatives have labeled Obama Hitler, Bin Laden, Stalin, Lenin and more. Liberals labeled Bush a nazi. The whole "you are like so and so" is pointless, as is hypothetical pondering and relating it to reality, although fine for those with time to kill. Mixing reality and fiction never produces anything useful except pop culture entertainment.
What's next then, "What if JFK had not been assassinated?"

Because there was a political situation where they could block Obama. The Nazis weren't propelled into a dictatorial seat if it wasn't for pretty serious political problems, ie communists trying to grab power in Berlin. It was a real threat at the time. It was a similar situation in Chile when Pinochet grabbed power. My point is that, when there are big calamities and strife you want somebody in the drivers seat who is calm and level headed. Somebody like Trump will just make a bad situation worse.

Bush and 9/11 is a good example. After 9/11 Bush could do pretty much anything he wanted. Hardly anybody would oppose him. That honey-moon wore pretty thin over time. But with a guy like Trump, I don't think it's incredible that he would have made a play for dictatorial powers.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Would it be ethical to assassinate Donald Trump? Given his claims he will torture, kill families of terrorists and institute carpet bombing in Iraq and Syria?

 

[Underseer]

Would it be ethical to assassinate Donald Trump? Given his claims he will torture, kill families of terrorists and institute carpet bombing in Iraq and Syria?

Would assassinating him prevent those things from happening?

I would argue not. Electing a Democrat instead of a Republican merely reduces the chances of that happening, and given the voting record of Hillary, I'm not so sure of even that. Even if you assassinated both Trump and Clinton, there seems to be a military infrastructure hell-bent on torturing people and/or killing families. President Dronestrike has been killing a lot of civilians, and we only have his word that he shut down the torture program started by his holiness Saint Bush II.

 

[davesteve]

It's never moral to kill, although sometimes it is necessary.

It's sometimes moral to kill because some killings are justified.

That would depend on YOUR definition of "moral".
If your definition is: Right thing to do in that situation...
Then, yes.

My definition would be: Something that is consistent with an overall philosophy of ones own behavior...
Then, no, It's never moral to kill in any circumstance.
But it still could be "right", necessary, etc. Like DBT said.

 

[davesteve]

Would it be ethical to assassinate Donald Trump? Given his claims he will torture, kill families of terrorists and institute carpet bombing in Iraq and Syria?

If your answer is YES, you fall down the slippery slope and end up in a hole you can't get out of.
Once you've killed Trump, you have to give permission to police officers to kill all those criminals that they know or guess, will commit more crime.
Then you have to give permission to wives to kill their abusers, because they know for SURE, they will be beaten again.
By the time your done deciding who to kill, you would have killed millions... in the name of "ethics". It just doesn't work, logically. Of coarse killers aren't usually logical. Mostly emotional.

 

[fast]

It's sometimes moral to kill because some killings are justified.

That would depend on YOUR definition of "moral".
If your definition is: Right thing to do in that situation...
Then, yes.

My definition would be: Something that is consistent with an overall philosophy of ones own behavior...
Then, no, It's never moral to kill in any circumstance.
But it still could be "right", necessary, etc. Like DBT said.

If I define the word, "cat" as a domesticated canid, and if a domesticated canid walks into my house and barks, then my statement that a cat has walked into my house and barked is false, as the lexical meaning of a word is independent of a stipulative meaning. The lesson here (and it's a very important lesson) that directly relates to what you're saying is that whatever definition of "moral" that either of us stipulatively provide is wholly irrelevant, for the only relevant definition is a function of how it's collectively used by fluent speakers of the English language.

In short, I reject the notion that it depends on either my definition or your definition.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Would it be ethical to assassinate Donald Trump? Given his claims he will torture, kill families of terrorists and institute carpet bombing in Iraq and Syria?

Would assassinating him prevent those things from happening?

I would argue not. Electing a Democrat instead of a Republican merely reduces the chances of that happening, and given the voting record of Hillary, I'm not so sure of even that. Even if you assassinated both Trump and Clinton, there seems to be a military infrastructure hell-bent on torturing people and/or killing families. President Dronestrike has been killing a lot of civilians, and we only have his word that he shut down the torture program started by his holiness Saint Bush II.

I heard Hillary's speech at the Democratic convention yesterday. She said she would do exactly this.

Anyhoo... that in itself is no reason to kill Trump. Most Americans seem to be fine with the US army torturing people as well as drone bombing them. Obviously. Or both parties candidates wouldn't be fine with it.

That's no reason to kill Trump. I see him as a threat to American democracy. He constantly says things, and makes promises that he couldn't possibly deliver on if USA wasn't a dictatorial police state. It's also pretty clear that he sees Islam as a greater threat than pretty much anything else. That's what makes me worried.

Hitler used the threat of communism as a way to justify abolishing democracy. Trump might do the same thing, arguing that the Democrats aren't doing enough to stop Islam. So they cannot be allowed to ever have power again. And hey presto, he has created a one-party state. That's a common pattern to how democracy disappears.

Whatever rules are put in place to prevent Muslims from getting and holding public offices, or just getting in the country, will be the same tools that can be used to derail democracy completely. Which Trump has promised he would do. Worth noting, and which is the tools Erdogan has used to derail Turkish democracy. So don't think it can't happen in a modern western state. Unless people aren't constantly vigilant democracy dies. And considering how far Trump has come already, it's pretty clear that Americans aren't vigilant (about the right threat) enough.

 

[fromderinside]

That's no reason to kill Trump.

OK. So why the thread? I presume by your no reason to kill (insert name) means all murder is immoral.

I agree. So forget about who, when,where, what, why, or how killing is immoral. One may need kill but one need also live with it.

You may use your moral position refuse service but you pay the price. Its the same if you kill a person. You pay the price.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's no reason to kill Trump.

OK. So why the thread? I presume by your no reason to kill (insert name) means all murder is immoral.

I agree. So forget about who, when,where, what, why, or how killing is immoral. One may need kill but one need also live with it.

You may use your moral position refuse service but you pay the price. Its the same if you kill a person. You pay the price.

Because everything I wrote after that sentence.

BTW, I'm not arguing for killing Trump. If I had a firm opinion I would not have made the thread.

I think murder can be justified. I guess the fumdamental question is something like; is Trump part of the symptoms, or the cause. If it's the latter then murder is justified. If it's the former, then what can we do to stop it? Fascism is always bad.

Simple solutions to complex problems will always just make the world more dangerous

 

[Underseer]

OK. So why the thread? I presume by your no reason to kill (insert name) means all murder is immoral.

I agree. So forget about who, when,where, what, why, or how killing is immoral. One may need kill but one need also live with it.

You may use your moral position refuse service but you pay the price. Its the same if you kill a person. You pay the price.

Because everything I wrote after that sentence.

BTW, I'm not arguing for killing Trump. If I had a firm opinion I would not have made the thread.

I think murder can be justified. I guess the fumdamental question is something like; is Trump part of the symptoms, or the cause. If it's the latter then murder is justified. If it's the former, then what can we do to stop it? Fascism is always bad.

Simple solutions to complex problems will always just make the world more dangerous

Eh, murder is always wrong, it's just that there are certain rare circumstances in which not killing is more bad than killing. This is not one of those times. Killing either Trump or Hitler would not actually make anything better and could make things worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because everything I wrote after that sentence.

BTW, I'm not arguing for killing Trump. If I had a firm opinion I would not have made the thread.

I think murder can be justified. I guess the fumdamental question is something like; is Trump part of the symptoms, or the cause. If it's the latter then murder is justified. If it's the former, then what can we do to stop it? Fascism is always bad.

Simple solutions to complex problems will always just make the world more dangerous

Eh, murder is always wrong, it's just that there are certain rare circumstances in which not killing is more bad than killing. This is not one of those times. Killing either Trump or Hitler would not actually make anything better and could make things worse.

Let's agree to disagree. This idea that all life is sacred is laughably stupid, considering how we spend public funds. We don't think all life is sacred. So many people die of easily preventable measures. We just don't give a fuck about them. Butility when it comes to killing criminals we suddenly go all high and mighty. I don't get it

 

[fromderinside]

Eh, murder is always wrong, it's just that there are certain rare circumstances in which not killing is more bad than killing. This is not one of those times. Killing either Trump or Hitler would not actually make anything better and could make things worse.

Let's agree to disagree. This idea that all life is sacred is laughably stupid, considering how we spend public funds. We don't think all life is sacred. So many people die of easily preventable measures. We just don't give a fuck about them. Butility when it comes to killing criminals we suddenly go all high and mighty. I don't get it

Is moral a theological thing? How about guidelines for a good life, or, rules for being a member of society: Part I The Notion of Society. You know things like that. From all indications life is built to live, strive to remain living. Presuming that observation is true then it comes evaluating situations arising between those living either in isolation or in groups who are part of living, striving to live things.

Taking the simple answer I gave and you basically repeated, how does one modify it to take account of situations between people when when one might die? How does on construct something one can rationally decide without needing the impact of emotion. In the case of crimes, breaking strong rules in a society, some societies have come to believe killing some of those who murder or do other unspeakable things benefits society in the long run. Others think differently.

Leaving aside what makes societies come to different answers are there common threads leading to each conclusion. I suspect there are such threads although I've never taken the time to determine what they might be. So all I can say is look at societies that have different practices regarding taking life and find general attributes that lead them kill or spare members. From that you will have an operational basis upon which to decide your own general rule.

Guess I'm something of an empirical lifestyle philosopher.

-nm

 

[fast]

Not every instance of a killing is an instance of a murder, yet every instance of a murder is an instance of a killing, so while murder is wrong, as every instance of a murder is an instance of an unjustified killing, not every killing is wrong, as not every instance of a killing is unjustified.

 

[Underseer]

Eh, murder is always wrong, it's just that there are certain rare circumstances in which not killing is more bad than killing. This is not one of those times. Killing either Trump or Hitler would not actually make anything better and could make things worse.

Let's agree to disagree. This idea that all life is sacred is laughably stupid, considering how we spend public funds. We don't think all life is sacred. So many people die of easily preventable measures. We just don't give a fuck about them. Butility when it comes to killing criminals we suddenly go all high and mighty. I don't get it

If you can save 10 lives by ending one, then killing the one person is the less bad choice, not a good choice. I don't think this view should be all that controversial.

 

[DBT]

Depends on the circumstances, the person you kill may belong to an organisation, or family, that decides to respond with payback and kill the people involved in the assassination. Something like clan warfare may result with a large loss of life.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Leaving aside what makes societies come to different answers are there common threads leading to each conclusion. I suspect there are such threads although I've never taken the time to determine what they might be. So all I can say is look at societies that have different practices regarding taking life and find general attributes that lead them kill or spare members. From that you will have an operational basis upon which to decide your own general rule.

Guess I'm something of an empirical lifestyle philosopher.

-nm

Don't agree at all. For example. Islamic countries do more corporal punishment than prisons. Corporal punishments is less psychologically destructive than prisons. Are way cheaper. Yet, are considered by the west as more barbaric. In the west we seem to view prisons as a kind of resort where inmates are locked up for a bit, where they get to rest, and so on. But it's an incredibly cruel punishment. Inmates often develop PTSD and all manner of long-term psychological wounds that make them less valuable citizens. Also increases there chance of re-offence. It's just an all-round idiotic way of punishing anybody.

We have a highly warped view of what is a just punishment. We seem to base our judgements on how little we see the punishment, or have to experience seeing the suffering of the criminal. That's just civilized varnish.

It's just like animals rights. Animal rights activists only care about animals that are cute and cuddly. That's not true love for animals.

Here's what I think. I think every society sits on a high horse and tell themselves that their way of punishing criminals is the best and most humane. And they tell themselves that their society is the pinnacle of civilization and the other one's just don't get it... and why are they so cruel and uncivilized. It's chauvinism. Nobody seems to actually care about how to create the most pragmatic system of punishment, (if the goal is to deter crime).

- - - Updated - - -

Let's agree to disagree. This idea that all life is sacred is laughably stupid, considering how we spend public funds. We don't think all life is sacred. So many people die of easily preventable measures. We just don't give a fuck about them. Butility when it comes to killing criminals we suddenly go all high and mighty. I don't get it

If you can save 10 lives by ending one, then killing the one person is the less bad choice, not a good choice. I don't think this view should be all that controversial.

Ok... so explain the Americans resistance to Obama-care? That was essentially this calculation. But it was saving 10 lives at the cost of some taxes. So it was saving 10 lives without having to sacrifice anybody.

We do these kinds of calculations all the time.

If we set the speed limit everywhere to 40 km/h nobody will ever die in traffic. Nobody will get fucking anywhere. But we save lives. Ergo, life isn't sacred or the highest value. In that traffic speed weighing we can calculate (objectively) exactly how much people value life.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Today we have a similar situation. Trump is pretty much running on the same platform as Hitler did. He also seems to be about as crazy and narcissistic. Also... he might actually win the American election.

The question is, if killing Hitler would be moral, does that mean it would moral to kill Trump now.

Thoughts?

Was Hitler viewed as a buffoon and blip on the radar at the time he was first coming into power, or was he always taken seriously? I do know he was rejected from art school...

 

[davesteve]

That would depend on YOUR definition of "moral".
If your definition is: Right thing to do in that situation...
Then, yes.

My definition would be: Something that is consistent with an overall philosophy of ones own behavior...
Then, no, It's never moral to kill in any circumstance.
But it still could be "right", necessary, etc. Like DBT said.

.... for the only relevant definition is a function of how it's collectively used by fluent speakers of the English language.

Many definitions can vary substantially enough to a point where the only way to decipher the meaning, is to ask for an individual's definition. Obviously, if two people are using the same word and they have different definitions, miscommunication results.
In this case, I could have assumed that your definition was the same as mine and just replied, "You are wrong."
Individual definition ALWAYS matters once a conversation reaches a certain point of detail. It has to, or the whole concept of communication falls apart. Many arguments can be quickly resolved with a quick definition check, so I reject the notion that it is irrelevant. How many times do you hear people say, "Oh ! I thought you meant blah blahblah." Happens about... billions of times a day, I would guess.